1. A man complained to the Independent Press Standards
Organisation on behalf of himself and his family that the Edinburgh Evening
News had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in
publishing a front page teaser image with the caption “Who lives in a house
like this?” on 13 September 2014.

2. The newspaper had published a photograph of the
complainant’s house on the front page, referring readers to pages 4 & 5 for
the full story. These pages featured an entirely unrelated article about a man
convicted of sexual offences, with the story about the complainant’s house
appearing on pages 6 and 7.

3. The complainant said that the error inaccurately
suggested that a sex offender lived in his home.

4. The newspaper
apologised for the error, offered to write a private letter of apology to the
complainant, and published the following clarification on its corrections page
in print on page 2 and online:

An item on our front page on September 13 2014, featured a
picture of [the complainant]’s house displaying a giant Yes banner alongside
the headline “Who lives in a house like this?” Readers were incorrectly
referred to pages four and five for the full story, where there was a report about
a sex offender, rather than to pages six and seven where the report about [the
complainant] actually appeared. We are very sorry for the error and any
embarrassment caused.

5. The newspaper also offered to make a donation of £50 to a
local charity, at the request of the complainant.

6. The complainant was concerned that the correction linked
his name with the offences; at his request, it was removed. He did not consider
a £50 donation to be sufficient, nor did he feel that a letter of apology would
address the damage caused by the original article and picture.

Relevant Code Provisions

7. Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.

Findings of the Committee

8. The newspaper had failed to take care not to publish
inaccurate information on its front page. The newspaper should have checked on
which pages the article about the complainant’s house would appear, and made
sure that the front page accurately reflected this. In failing to do so, it had
breached Clause 1 (i). The inaccuracy was a significant one, as it could
suggest to a casual reader that the inhabitants of the house pictured were
linked to the offences described on pages 4 and 5. A correction was therefore
necessary to comply with the terms of Clause 1 (ii).

Conclusions

9. The complaint was upheld.

Remedial Action Required

10. Having upheld the complaint, the Committee considered
what remedial action should be required. The Committee has the power to require
the publication of a correction and/or adjudication; the nature, extent and
placement is to be determined by IPSO. It may inform the publication that
further remedial action is required to ensure that the requirements of the
Editors’ Code are met.

11. The correction published by the newspaper had identified
the original inaccuracy, made clear the true position, and had included an
apology, which was necessary to comply with the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The
newspaper had offered to correct the error promptly, as soon as it had been
brought to its attention. The Committee also noted that the front page teaser
photograph had been used prominently on pages 6 and 7, where the article about
the complainant appeared, making clear to readers that the front page image was
associated with the story on those pages, rather than that on pages 4 and 5.
Given that the original front page had not suggested a link between the
complainant and the sex offences, and that this would only have been made by
readers who turned to pages 4 and 5, the positioning of the correction on page
2 was appropriate. The newspaper’s offer was therefore a sufficient remedy
under the terms of Clause 1 (ii). The Committee understood the complainant’s
objection to the correction, as it linked his name with the offences. It was
unfortunate that the complainant had been on holiday at the time at which the
correction was published, and so had not been able to approve it. The Committee
welcomed the newspaper’s willingness to remove it from its website at the
request of the complainant.

This website uses cookies that provide necessary site functionality and improve your online experience. By continuing to use this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Our cookies notice provides more information about what cookies we use and how you can change them.